New NFA Review Process Updates CP Coffee April 13, 2015.
Transcript of New NFA Review Process Updates CP Coffee April 13, 2015.
New NFA Review Process Updates
CP CoffeeApril 13, 2015
NWDO (2)
Up Town GreenSandusky Cabinets
NEDO (4)
Fairmont Creamery**Eastern Portion Fmr TIP
Fmr Alliance Comm. Hosp.
Parcel B – Harvard Ave
CDO (2)
Atlas Bldg**LC River South
SWDO (6)
Fmr Dayton ElectroplateFmr Cinci Die CastOhio Vet Children’s
HomeFmr Estate Stove
Piqua MPPFord Batavia
Fourteen NFAs submitted*
*As of 4/7/15**CNS Issued
Atlas Building First NFA issued Asbestos only remediation INOD sent – minor comments only 83 days submittal to sign-off
Fairmont Creamery INOD (8 pg) sent – 7 day response CNS needed by 12/31 – tax abatement 70 days submittal to sign-off
CNS’ Issued
Time
Legal group comments Affidavit instructions
Submittal vs. issuance dates
NFA Template Updates
• CP develops NFA
• CP finalizes NFA
• CP Issues Final NFA
NFA Issuance Affidavit
• Volunteer reviews
• CP gives NFA to volunteer via transmittal letter
Volunteer’s Written Notice of Submittal • CP Receives
Notice of Submittal
• CP submits to Agency for CNS
NFA Submittal Affidavit
Risk group comments New tables
Include exposure point/MCA data
CP suggestions Clearer instructions
Better instructions on Table 4.1 Expand asbestos narrative in section 2.3
NFA Template Updates
Changes made and posted Ver. 3/9/15 http://
epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/vap/docs/NFA%20Letter%20template%203-9-15.docx
Template still subject to change
Please provide more input as we go along
NFA Template Updates
After 10 CNS’ issued evaluate entire process
Review timelines Sufficient time allowed?
INOD/FNOD comments Type and style of comments?
NFA submittals Getting needed information?
NFA Process Review
Cinci Die Cast Foundry until 2001 – vacated 2007 Structure razed 2011 Listed six IAs Future use is commercial/industrial
New Rule NFA
Pathways Direct contact – C/I Direct contact – C/E Groundwater – Class B upper zone VI (potential future buildings
Developed background demo (As) PSRA – J&E modeling for VI
Site facts
Soil Excavation in IA-1 Soil exceeded saturation – elevated TPH
No RMP / O&M needed
EC Limit to C/I Prohibition on g.w. extraction
Site facts
Letter generated
Eight pages
20 individual comments
Comments evenly distributed b/t all reviewers
INOD
Inconsistencies Volunteer name Acreage
Clarity required Number of soil samples per IA Possible inappropriate combination of releases
to single IA
Re-designation of IA Off-property release as IA – table/text revisions
INOD Comments
Potential O&M needed Slab left in place – engineering control or not?
More inconsistencies C/E dir. contact w/g.w. listed in section 3.1 not in
section 2.5 VOCs listed in five IAs
VI pathway only assessed in one IA
INOD Comments
Background Incorrectly listed soil study value in text Clarify which soils being compared – soil type
HHRA No std. developed for C/E g.w. – reasonably
complete
INOD Comments
Groundwater No POGWMUPUS demo to lower zone
Upper zone dirty, therefore POGWMUPUS applies to lower
Arsenic value not in Table 4.1
Legal EC comments
INOD Comments
Generated many same (i.e., number and style) comments as past NFA reviews
Focused to clarification and consistency revisions
All rule based – citations for each
INOD Comment Summary
Re-submit revise executive summary as necessary,
and
Revise supporting documentation accordingly!
Be sure to:
Questions